Prove that the Bible is from God!

Absolutely wrong. Evidence is presented to the court for its consideration. If the evidence is found worthy, it becomes proof. (One must be proved guilty from the evidence presented.) An observance is made and evidence presented from which a hypothesis is formed. That hypothesis must be proved in order to become a theory.

Click to expand...

This can be attributed to semantic inaccuracies. When a person is "proved guilty" it is not said that it is impossible for a mistake to have been made. This can be easily seen through the number of cases in which a "guilty" person has been later shown to be innocent.

What is actually being said is that it is highly likely that the defendent is guilty according to the evidence. In fact, the likelihood is so high that it exceeds the unwritten line that permits punishment of that defendent.

Whilst it would be correct to say "it has been proven that the defendent is likely to be guilty", it would be incorrect to say "it has been proven that the defendent is guilty". The latter could only be arrived at from a deductive argument and is therefore not possible from the inductive nature of evidence.

This would be all well and find except that when people ask for proof, the unwritten line can be placed absolutely anywhere. So we have a creationist who states that design in nature proves God's existence becauses his line is very low. We have the nihilist who doubts the existence of reality because his line is set very high.

What this means is that "proof" is essentially meaningless unless the position of the line is fixed. In this case, proof was asked that the Bible is from God not that the Bible was likely to have come from God. This can only be answered through deductive means since evidence cannot provide a certain conclusion.

There is no evidence that could be used to prove to me that the Bible was written by God because proof, to me, must be certain and therefore must be deductive not inductive.

What do you mean "relevant?" Relevant to what?

Click to expand...

A piece of relevant evidence is evidence that justifies whatever conclusion is being put forward. If a piece of evidence is false or falsely applied then it is not relevant.

For example, a man may be accused of murdering another man. The evidence for this was that he was in posession of a gun at the time. This would be relevant evidence unless, for example, the man was paraplegic or the murdered man was drowned and not shot. In both of these cases, the evidence is irrelevant.

So when you say that you "find plenty of evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired" then this very well may be the case. However, the reason why it cannot be considered proof is not because your belief is somehow immune to scepticism but because it falters to the very same arguments as to why science does not deal in "proof".

I see no difference between faith based on evidence (what I would call belief) and science based on evidence (what I would also refer to as belief) in anything except for the generally more consistent methodology and clearer line of the latter.

In addition to being relevant, evidence should also be capable of authentication, be traceable to someone's personal knowledge, and generally bear indicia of reliability.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that hearsay in a book by an unknown author, whose purposes in writing and basis in personal knowledge for the things written is likewise unknown, isn't compelling evidence of anything.

Click to expand...

I agree with you fully. When I use the term "relevent" I imply all of the things that you listed so eloquently here since I feel that if evidence fails any of these criteria, it can no longer be considered relevent.

sojourner said:

Absolutely wrong. Evidence is presented to the court for its consideration.

Click to expand...

Well . . . not quite. Legally admissible evidence is presented to the court and/or jury for consideration. If non-legally admissible evidence is presented, it will typically result in the judgment of the court or the jury verdict being set aside on appeal if the judgment was based on improperly admitted evidence. And to be admissible and "worthy of consideration," evidence should generally be (among other things): relevant, authenticated, and reliable. Generally, hearsay is not admissible evidence. Unauthenticated documents and statements are not admissible evidence.


The question of relevance is defined by the factual dispute under consideration. Does the purported evidence tend to make a factual proposition in dispute more or less likely? Necessarily, that requires careful consideration and framing of the facts in dispute. Disputes that aren't about facts are not evidentiary matters.

the doppleganger

I see no difference between faith based on evidence (what I would call belief) and science based on evidence (what I would also refer to as belief) in anything except for the generally more consistent methodology and clearer line of the latter.

Click to expand...

Here is the crux of the argument. The rest is fluff (no pun on your name intended). You see no difference between faith and science. Therefore, for any faith-statement to be true, the same methodology must be used, and the same "bottom line" must be the benchmark.

The mistake you make is that religion is not cold science. Religion is more relational. It's about humanity's relationship with the divine. In your model, imagination, emotion, creativity, aesthetics, revelation, prophecy, perspective, understanding -- all of those ineffable human qualities -- the more spiritual dimensions -- are left out of the equation. They are "irrevelent" to the "bottom line." You would take the humanity out of religion in order to establish its veracity. The problem is, religion is as much about the humanity of the divine as it is about the "science," if you will, of the divine.

The line, as you put it, must remain flexible, since human beings are not all at the same point in the spiritual journey. Some people still blame Katrina on divine retribution, while others insist there must be a broader perspective, for example. None of that negates the evidence that is found by one person or another that inspires faith in a particular aspect of spiritual experience. There is no "bottom line," in the spiritual realm, that is measurable by human standards. That's why humanity includes all of these ineffable qualities that make us uniquely human. We are deeper than we can plumb.

The Bible cannot, by spiritual standards, be proved to be of God. It doesn't have to be. The Bible is not an absolute. I think we make a big mistake when we attempt to apply absolutes to the spiritual realm. God is the only absolute, and we cannot fully know God absolutely, from a purely physical pov. Therefore, physical proof is not only unnecessary, it's absurd. Like asking the question, "What does color sound like?"
While light waves might conceivably be able to be "heard" via technological aid, that's not how we experience color. That's not how color impacts us and sparks our ineffable senses of imagination, beauty, etc. The Bible does not impact us because of its physical proofs. It impacts us spiritually.

sojourner said:

Here is the crux of the argument. The rest is fluff (no pun on your name intended). You see no difference between faith and science. Therefore, for any faith-statement to be true, the same methodology must be used, and the same "bottom line" must be the benchmark.

Click to expand...

That's where it is important to define the scope of the investigation. Is there a disputed claim about facts on which we could gather and analyze evidence? If so, what specific factual claims are in dispute?

Some people do not separate their "faith" from belief in the literal occurrence of factual events and purport to be able to prove those factual events occurred with evidence. A discussion of such a "faith" is subject to evidentiary considerations.

the doppleganger

doppleganger said:

That's where it is important to define the scope of the investigation. Is there a disputed claim about facts on which we could gather and analyze evidence? If so, what specific factual claims are in dispute?

Some people do not separate their "faith" from belief in the literal occurrence of factual events and purport to be able to prove those factual events occurred with evidence. A discussion of such a "faith" is subject to evidentiary considerations.

the doppleganger

Click to expand...

Why does there need to be an investigation at all? Only those who see no evidence of the Divine in scripture call for proof. And, I'd wager that "proof" really isn't what they're looking for, in the first place.

Faith is always subject to evidenciary considerations. That was my point at the beginning of the discussion. But evidence is different from proof. Evidence points us in a certain way. Proof hits us over the head with absolutes.

sojourner said:

Why does there need to be an investigation at all?

Click to expand...

There doesn't. For example, someone like I've described could come up to me and say "I'm going to show you evidence that will convince you that what you know as the Native Americans are descendents of the lost tribe of Israel and were actually visited by Jesus Christ after his death and resurrection in Israel," I could say, "No thanks. Not interested." Or I could say, "Let's see the evidence." If the latter, we could analyze the authenticity, relevance of and reliability of the evidence he was relying upon to the factual claims he was making. Of course, I don't have to do that. But that's precisely what many believers have asked me to do. In the past, I've been of the mood to take them up on it. These days I'm much more inclined to let it be and move on to some topic I think will be more likely to be productive.

sojourner said:

Only those who see no evidence of the Divine in scripture call for proof. And, I'd wager that "proof" really isn't what they're looking for, in the first place.

Click to expand...

You are probably right. If I place my "faith" in my ability to prove some factual contention with evidence, I am setting myself up for disappointment, I think.

sojourner said:

Faith is always subject to evidenciary considerations.

Click to expand...

Such as?

sojourner said:

But evidence is different from proof.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by "evidence" and "proof." As you know, these are words, and may have any meaning we associate with them. If you say they are different and I say they are the same, it's a safe bet we aren't relating the same meanings to them.

sojourner said:

Evidence points us in a certain way. Proof hits us over the head with absolutes.

Click to expand...

Evidence may or may not point a given individual in a certain way. It may vary greatly from person to person how evidence will be received. Ask the O.J. Simpson jurors or whoever advises President Bush on global warming. If by "proof" you mean "logical proof" of the "deductive" or "tautological" sort, then I would agree with your distinction. However, I've seen "proof" used frequently both as an informal and formal synonym for "evidence." The law refers to a "burden of proof" for example, which is the means of measuring the sufficiency of the "evidence" offered in support of a factual proposition.

the doppleganger

Genna said:

I don't believe in Islam either, prove that was from God! I am an atheist!

Click to expand...

[23] And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. (Surah 2:23)


[60] Or, who has created the heavens and the earth, and who sends you down rain from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to grow well-planted orchards full of beauty and delight: it is not in your power to cause the growth of the trees in them. (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, they are a people who swerve from justice.


[61] Or, who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable, and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

[62] Or, who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Little it is that ye heed!


[63] Or, who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? High is Allah above what they associate with Him!

[64] Or, who originates Creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Say, "Bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!" (Surah 27:60-64)

lamplighter said:

From what I know the prophet Muhamid was exiled and lived in a cave starving to death when an angel came before him and told him to write the Koran.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Do you know him?
http://www.geocities.com/baron_night84/DO_YOU_KNOW_HIM1.pps#256,1,Slide 1


Learn about Mohammed
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28808

sojourner said:

Here is the crux of the argument. The rest is fluff (no pun on your name intended). You see no difference between faith and science. Therefore, for any faith-statement to be true, the same methodology must be used, and the same "bottom line" must be the benchmark.

Click to expand...

That's not an accurate re-wording of what was said, and therefore the conclusion does not follow.

The Truth said:

[23] And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (if there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. (Surah 2:23)


[60] Or, who has created the heavens and the earth, and who sends you down rain from the sky? Yea, with it We cause to grow well-planted orchards full of beauty and delight: it is not in your power to cause the growth of the trees in them. (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, they are a people who swerve from justice.


[61] Or, who has made the earth firm to live in; made rivers in its midst; set thereon mountains immovable, and made a separating bar between the two bodies of flowing water? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Nay, most of them know not.

[62] Or, who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Little it is that ye heed!


[63] Or, who guides you through the depths of darkness on land and sea, and who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? High is Allah above what they associate with Him!

[64] Or, who originates Creation, then repeats it, and who gives you sustenance from heaven and earth? (Can there be another) god besides Allah? Say, "Bring forth your argument, if ye are telling the truth!" (Surah 27:60-64)

Click to expand...

The why do muslims kill Christians?

Genna said:

The why do muslims kill Christians?

Click to expand...

Why you think so?

heheheheheh

I don't know whether you are too naive or that you know nothing about Islam and Muslims, i wonder !

OK, i am gonna chill for a while, the supermod gave me multiple warnings because I have a nasty attitude, but hey, i'm naturally nasty, forgive me!

Genna said:

The why do muslims kill Christians?

Click to expand...

I hate to admit it, because I'm western and those are my ancestors, but Christians were the ones who started the aggressions back in the middle age. Remember the crusades?, before that Muslims where known to be very peaceful.

Off course, we are talking about extremists here. You most likely are going to find a killing spree by every religion/culture.

(I am choosing to assume your disrespectfulness is unintentional, forgiving you for it and answering your questions anyway)

Genna said:

And yet Christians have the arrogancy to make the claim that God inspired the bible, and the the authors were the mouthpiece of God!

Click to expand...

It's not us 'arrogant Christians' who make that claim... the Bible itself does that for us...

Snowbear said:

(I am choosing to assume your disrespectfulness is unintentional, forgiving you for it and answering your questions anyway)


It's not us 'arrogant Christians' who make that claim... the Bible itself does that for us...

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.

​

Click to expand...

Yeah, but how do you know that it is God-breathed? Islam also makes the same claim and further it claims the bible has been tampered with, i.e., God's word. Since Islam claims that it is God's inerrant word, what puts your faith of Christianity above theirs?

Snowbear said:

It's not us 'arrogant Christians' who make that claim... the Bible itself does that for us...

2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.


​

Click to expand...

- There is no actual "Bible". The word "Bible" doesn't even exist in what we call today "The Bible". So when such claim is made, it is not right for us to use it to prove the entire "collection" was inpired from GOD Almighty.


- Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed". GOD Almighty said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands.


- Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had rediculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanantly preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanatly preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful.

Genna said:

Yeah, but how do you know that it is God-breathed? Islam also makes the same claim and further it claims the bible has been tampered with, i.e., God's word. Since Islam claims that it is God's inerrant word, what puts your faith of Christianity above theirs?

Click to expand...

My faith is my own. My faith is not in the religiosity of Christianity. It is in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. I don't claim to 'put (my faith) above' that of anyone else's.

I already told you why I believe the Bible is God-breathed.... there's no need for me to repeat it ~ all you have to do is read my post.

Just because Islam makes a claim about another faith does not make that claim true... even if their holy book apparently advises them to kill me for not putting my faith in the same book or prophet as they do

Lets see how it sounds when we substitute the same claims about what you believe for those you make attacking my beliefs....

The Truth said:

- There is no actual "Bible". The word "Bible" doesn't even exist in what we call today "The Bible". So when such claim is made, it is not right for us to use it to prove the entire "collection" was inpired from GOD Almighty.


- Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed". GOD Almighty said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands.


- Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had rediculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanantly preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanatly preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful.

Click to expand...

- There is no actual "Quran". The word "Quran" doesn't even exist in what we call today "The Quran". So when such claim is made, it is not right for us to use it to prove the entire "collection" was inpired from ALLAH Almighty.


- Muhammed obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament


- Muhammed ridiculously contradicted himself, because he himself cancelled out any peaceful purpose when later prophesied to kill anyone who does not share his beliefs. This should be one solid proof that Muhammed was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Muhammed was a warrier and did not preach peace.

Snowbear said:

even if their holy book apparently advises them to kill me for not putting my faith in the same book or prophet as they do

Click to expand...

Show me please where does it say in the Quran to kill the Christians?

You didn't even read what does the Quran says about the Christians.

[82] Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.


[83] And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses. (Surah 5:82-83)

This is what God says about the Christians.

I hope that you will be one of those mentioned in the verse.

Peace and blessing,

The Truth

mingmty said:

I hate to admit it, because I'm western and those are my ancestors, but Christians were the ones who started the aggressions back in the middle age. Remember the crusades?, before that Muslims where known to be very peaceful.

Off course, we are talking about extremists here. You most likely are going to find a killing spree by every religion/culture.

Click to expand...

where in heavens name did you get that idea from ?
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=35747
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=37227